Jerry King, Respondent, v. Director of Revenue, Appellant.
Decision date: April 7, 2009ED91915
Slip Opinion Notice
This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.
Opinion
JERRY N. KING, ) No. ED91915 ) Plaintiff/Respondent, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court of ) St. Charles County vs. ) ) DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, ) Honorable Matthew Thornhill ) Defendant/Appellant. ) FILED: April 7, 2009 )
The Director of Revenue, State of Missouri (Appellant) appeals from an order granting Jerry King (Respondent) a limited driving privilege. As an initial matter, this Court must determine whether it has jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. If we lack jurisdiction, we should dismiss the appeal. Bryant v. City of University City, 105 S.W.3d 855, 856 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003). "To invoke this Court's jurisdiction, parties must appeal a written decree or order which has been signed by the trial judge and denominated a 'judgment.'" Jon E. Fuhrer Co. v. Gerhardt, 955 S.W.2d 212, 213 (Mo. App. E.D. 1997); Rule 74.01(a). In designating the writing a "judgment, " it must be clear from the writing that the trial court is calling the document or docket sheet entry a judgment. City of St. Louis v. Hughes , 950 S.W.2d 850, 853 (Mo. banc 1997). Here, the order granting Respondent a limited driving privilege is not denominated a "judgment" as required by Rule 74.01(a). We issued an order directing Appellant to show cause
why the appeal should not be dismissed and providing Appellant an opportunity to ask the circuit court to enter a judgment that complied with Rule 74.01(a). Appellant has failed to respond to our order and has not filed a judgment complying with Rule 74.01(a). The order must be denominated a judgment or this Court lacks jurisdiction. Brooks v. Brooks, 98 S.w.3d 530, 532 (Mo. banc 2003); Popular Leasing USA, Inc. v. Universal Art Corp. of New York , 57 S.W.3d 875, 878 (Mo. App. E.D. 2001); Daniele v. Collector of Revenue of City of St. Louis , 30 S.W.3d 247, 248 (Mo. App. E.D. 2000). We dismiss the appeal without prejudice for lack of a final, appealable judgment.
____________________________________ NANNETTE A. BAKER, CHIEF JUDGE
PATRICIA L. COHEN, J., and KENNETH M. ROMINES, J., concur.
2
Related Opinions
Rodney Lee Lincoln, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.(2014)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictDecember 2, 2104#ED100987
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. James McGregory, Appellant.(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictMarch 10, 2026#ED113080
McGregory appealed his convictions for domestic assault in the third degree and property damage in the second degree, raising unpreserved claims of error regarding evidence admissibility and the Crime Victims' Compensation Fund judgment amount. The court affirmed the convictions but modified the CVC judgment amount, finding the trial court entered a judgment in excess of that authorized by law.
STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. RUSSELL KENNETH CLANCY, Appellant(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictFebruary 25, 2026#SD38782
The court affirmed Clancy's conviction for second-degree assault against a special victim after a jury trial. The evidence was sufficient to prove that Clancy punched an elderly civilian in the face and struck a police officer during an altercation at a laundromat, supporting the conviction under Missouri statute § 565.052.3.
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. James Willis Peters, Appellant.(2026)
Supreme Court of MissouriFebruary 24, 2026#SC101218
James Willis Peters appealed his conviction for driving while intoxicated as a chronic offender, challenging whether the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that all four of his prior offenses were intoxication-related traffic offenses. The court found the state failed to sufficiently prove his 2002 offense was an IRTO and therefore vacated the judgment and remanded for resentencing.
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Gerald R. Nytes, Appellant.(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 17, 2026#ED113261
Gerald Nytes appealed his conviction for violating a full order of protection, arguing the State failed to prove he had notice of the order as required by statute. The court affirmed, finding sufficient evidence of notice based on Nytes's presence at the contested order of protection hearing and his subsequent violation through phone calls made from jail to the protected party.